Krishna Sonwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4402 OF 2021 • Krishna Sonwani, S/o Guha Ram Sonwani, aged about 32 years, R/o Ward No.12, Satnamipara, Stationpara, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Planning Economics and Statistics, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Joint Director, Directorate Economics and Statistics, Block-2, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG) 3.

Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 4.

District Planning and Statistics Officer, Opposite Digvijay Stadium, Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board /08/2021 1.

The limited relief that Petitioner seeks at the outset is for an appropriate direction to Respondents to consider and decide his representation which he has made is in respect of taking him back in services as a contractual appointee on the post of Driver.

2.

Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the Petitioner had worked under the Respondents on contractual basis for around 7 years and that subsequently on account of a regular posting being made on the post of Driver, the services of Petitioner got discontinued from the contractual appointment. Subsequently, the regular arrangement made also stood cancelled as the earlier order of regular arrangement was cancelled and the post of Driver again has fallen vacant. Thereafter, the Petitioner has been approaching the Authorities for taking him back in services as a contractual appointee. Petitioner has already made a representation in this regard to the Authorities concerned but till date no decision has been taken.

3.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present Writ Petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the Respondents to consider and decide the representation of Petitioner, on its own merits, subject to need for engagement of a contractual appointee.

4.

Let appropriate decision in this regard be taken by Respondents at the earliest, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of Petitioner. Authorities are free to take a decision subject to availability of post and the necessity for engagement of a contractual appointee. 6.

Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE